Ronald Fischer, Grand Forks, column: Faithful Catholics can’t vote for pro-choice candidates
October 24, 2012 at 7:05 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Rather than directing his ire at Bishop David Kagan for having the courage to speak the truth, State Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, should use his efforts and skills to convince the Democratic Party and its candidates to abandon their support for abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and same-sex marriage. Continue Reading
I will never bring religious views with me when I vote. voting is a personal choice, not a religious choice. No religion should tell anyone how to vote. ever! If a religion is to tell someone how to vote, they shall pay taxes like every other company. It is our duty to keep religion and government separate in order to respect other religions and their views and beliefs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
32
Anyone who votes for a candidate based on one single topic like this is absolutely nuts in the first place.
I am pro-life but guess what? That position does not even remotely creep into my mind when i vote.
I dont vote based on whats good for ME or my personal views, I vote based on what i believe is best for the country as a whole.
MY faith will never be a determining factor when it come time to vote. period.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Believe it or not Cap…..I too vote for what’s best for you……Well at least what I think is best……..LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you will leave your most cherished and deeply held beliefs behind when you vote? You will vote purely for self-interest and perhaps how you are told by the media or your union? You must be a Democrat.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I vote for either party depending on who i see best to run the country right down to the local level. The key is to support freedom of religion and the Freedom to choose. We do not need religious views messing up this country. What one religion wants will not be wanted by another, all the more reason religion must keep out of politics. my religion wont take sides on pro choice or pro life, but leaves it to the individual
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have a difficult time understanding how this article could have been printed in the GF Herald in the first place, couldn’t help but laugh at the arrogance of the individual making these comments… Let me start out by asking what exactly happened to the separation of Church and State? If this doesn’t take a leap across boundaries then I really have to ask how this whole situation relates to the laws associated with a campaign’s spending and income regulations, something definitely doesn’t seem right there to me, and by the sounds of it possible illegal campaign activity may be being encouraged here… I quickly did a double-take after reading the quote “This is all the more reason for Catholic bishops and clergy to inform Catholics that if they wish to remain true to their faith, they must not support candidates or parties who advocate against the teachings of the church.” This absolutely blows my mind, so if a Church Member at a Catholic Church decides they would like to vote for an individual who doesn’t support one of the issues which the Church stands behind then the Church is impending that this particular member is unfaithful? So what does this mean? Are they saying that Catholics around the world aren’t “True Catholics” if they decide that they are going to vote for somebody that the Church isn’t endorsing??? How has this become acceptable by society? And who exactly are the individuals who represent the Church and make these “decisions of what is right and what is wrong” for everyone else? Last time I checked, “the ability for people to make their own choices and to learn from their own mistakes” was the only “plan” which the “God” who they claim to represent was truly adamant about. Any “Church” who teaches their followers that “right and wrong” goes any further than “making the choices which are not at other’s expense” is a “Church” which I would safely say does not represent who they claim to. Preaching to those who follow this “Church,” yet prefer to make their own choices, even the choices which go against what this “Church finds acceptable,” implying that they’re risking their “salvation” by doing so, this should be more than enough for those to see that there is something wrong here. I have watched the Church try and manipulate and control those who put their faith in them for far too long, their concern for the salvation of those who follow is something which was replaced with their lust for power and blatant greed long before now. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that “Church” is bad by any means; I just believe that those in charge fell off the path long ago. Impending that they would prefer to endorse a party which has shown more concern of keeping wealthy friends happy and keeping the wealthy man’s wallet padded, rather than a party whose concern obviously represents a much more common American Citizen if their stances aren’t adjusted to those of the “Catholic Church,” this should be another comment that should raise some eyebrows, where does it all stop, when will they understand that their own perception of what society should think is acceptable is something which should remain their own, I would absolutely love for somebody to let me know who exactly they believe they are which allows them to judge the actions of others which have been made with good intentions …
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
29
The church is stating what it views are, they are not endorsing any candidate for office. Do you have a proble with jesse jackson or al sharpton telling people how to vote since they are clergy representing their religion. Also it should not be just addressed to Catholics but to all Christians (people who have accepted Christ as their savior). In the Bible it is stated that Mary was pregnate with child and God stated he knew you in the womb. So if you are Christian and believe the Bible is the word of God, you should vote for the candidate that has your views. That is all the letter is stating.
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
42
I don’t know about him, but most of us on the left don’t vote lock step. Of course it would be wrong if those clergy did the same thing either at the pulpit or at some church event of a congregation they ministered to. Why wouldn’t be just as wrong? It’s not the person….It’s the act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually since both of them have become media stars I’m not sure either of them actually do minister to any church now days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great post! Can you even imagine if the editorial had been written from the stand point of a Mormon? Or a Muslum? People would be incredulous that anybody would suggest such a thing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
10
There are two major problems with Ron Fischer’s argument. The lesser of the two — expressed by Fischer’s statement: “Barack Obama — the most pro-abortion president in history” — is hyperbolic nonsense. A more realistic appraisal would be that Obama is a strong advocate of women’s reproductive rights, and as such, wants abortion to be legal BUT RARE as a result of effective education and comprehensive family planning.
The second is the notion that the scriptures forbid abortion. They don’t, and moreover, it is clear that, if anything, the scriptures imply that a fetus does not have the rights of a living person.
As a practicing attorney Fischer should understand the COTUS and the tax regulations better than most. Thus, unless he is willing to use ignorance as a defense, it is clear that he sees his duty to the Vatican as a higher obligation than the oaths he swore as an attorney.
Hot debate. What do you think?
36 
29
Ron Fischer is not only a practicing attorney, he has been/is paid Grand Forks tax payers as a City Attorney.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
That should have said “paid by Grand Forks taxpayers as a City Attorney”
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
“the scriptures imply that a fetus does not have the rights of a living person.”
According to Judaism, it becomes a person when the head crowns.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
18
There’s some strong language in this piece but critics might be misled. To many Catholics, “gravely evil and damaging to society” is reserved for a single, paramount issue, abortion and its ugly cousins. The fight for us to change this law goes far beyond our civic duty. The definition of marriage is a current event, but, infinitesimal by comparison. I’m not looking for a debate. I’m saying, to Catholics, one issue is a mountain range. The other is a grain of sand.
Like or Dislike:
13 
14
But here’s the problems alvin: a) most Catholics don’t agree that abortion is the “paramount” issue, b) most Catholics don’t agree with Bishops politicking, c) Fischer, letter writer Dwight Messner, and Bishop Kagan are mistaken that the bible outlaws abortion.
(For data on a and b see: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/catholic-voters-reject-political-influence-of-bishops-173726901.html)
This “paramount” issue nearest divine source is the collective thoughts of a bunch of elderly male virgins.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
18
You may not be alone, but you are in the minority. When the minority tries to dictate their beliefs to others it is bound to fail.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
13
By any measure, my side has failed miserably. That makes you correct for maybe the first time. While you see these aborted children as a managed condition, I’ll continue to lose sleep thinking
these people are equal to you and me and the mother who chose to make this choice. This
exchange is fruitless but it’s worthwhile that you pointed out what an incredible loser I am. That
has to be a small victory to such a realist.
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
Alvin, sweetheart, let me tell you something. There are only two kinds of people in the world, us and those who wish they were us. You are not a loser. You are one of us.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
While your effort to dictate to others may have failed, you yourself should take heart that tomorrow is another day, and as a person, you are always as successful as the most modest among us.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Unless it involves a mascot.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The Bible doesn’t outlaw abortion because there was no abortion. There was, however, enormous infant mortality, better than 50%, which is why it outlaws Onanism. In its prohibition of contraception, the RC Church looks back centuries and more, and refuses to acknowledge the realities of the third world’s overpopulation disaster now. This is what happens when doctrines become written in stone and refuse to recognize the historical backround which generated them.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
11
It’s much worse than that Gene. In the third world HIV is vectored by the religion virus– and the anti-contraception crusades of the Catholic church aided and abetted by other radical evangelicals have caused a modern holocaust of AIDS deaths.
So much for the notion of “pro life!”
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
24
Yet in San Francisco among a very anti-religious population HIV spread like wildfire. If they had listened to what the Church has said then many would still be alive. They rejected the truth and paid a price.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
22
Huge difference. In Africa AIDFS is a hetero disease, affecting mainly women, whose culture doesn’t allow them to resist. In SF it’s among gay men who engage in mtually agreed to sex.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
As far as AIDS in Africa, here is part of the problem, as far as being a “hetro” problem:
Some of the men, who work away from home (mining, etc.), are involved with prostitutes at the mining camps. They contract HIV from the prostitute and then go home and pass it to their wife. If the wife becomes pregnant, the baby can be born with HIV.
To infer that the Catholic Church is the problem is incorrect. The man having relations with the prostitute is the problem.
Like or Dislike:
18 
8
Isn’t it still an issue of the Church being anti-contraception and if those men used condoms, their wives would be protected?
Like or Dislike:
12 
14
If the man and his wife were faithful to each other (and also did not use illegal drugs), there would be little or no exposure to HIV (or other STD’s: herpes, etc.) in the first place.
By having one or the other spouse freelancing with sex with others, then you have the exposure to the diseases in the first place.
The wages of sin is death.
Like or Dislike:
16 
10
With Humanae vitae, Paul VI had the chance to bring the RCC into the modern era. Even his council advised the opposite conclusion. But he chose to look back 1500 years to a time when 8 out 10 infants died, and the Church needed lots of births to survive. First-world Catholics don’t even pay attention to it. In Third-world Latin America and Africa the results of it have been disasterous.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
Voting for anti abortion politicians is a wasted vote, abortion is not going to be eradicated by political action. Gay people will not be turned straight, get married to members of the opposite sex, and have children through political action. The issues brought up by the Bishop and Ron are not issues that will be changed by politicians. So, instead look at the economic issues, the social issues, and the foreign policy issues and vote for a candidate that best suits your position on issues that WILL be affected by political action. Sure vote your conscience, but vote for relevant issues that will be impacted by the people you vote for.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
12
This is exactly what I was thinking.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
The Catholic Church has the right and obligation to preach the truth. We can eliminate abortion legally and we will do all that we can to see that happen. Truth matters, that sums up what the bishop said.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
29
…except that “truth” to the Catholic Church isn’t the same as truth to most people. It’s actually the dogma of the church.
Where did it come from? Objective analysis argues that it’s the interpretation of bronze- and iron-age Palestinian myths made by a succession of elderly male virgins.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
20
“Where did it come from?”
All Catholic doctrines are a response to a specific issue within a historical context. Augustine invented Original Sin to explain why the Vandals were turning Christians into chutney. The Trinity justified the deification of a Galilean peasant. Transubstantiation, the eating and driniking of the god’s body and blood,, was a steal from Mithraism. Virgin birth was a means of competing with other religions which claimed the same thing for their gods. Immaculate conception explains how a sinful woman could give birth to a perfect god. Of course, the Church only expounds the doctrine, it never speaks about the history behind it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
I think you’re confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virginal Conception.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Not at all. Stuck with a human mother, the Church had to invent the Immaculate Conception; that she was conceived without sin. At one point the Church was urged to consider declaring it for her mother too. But since their is no mention of her in the New Testament, it didn’t.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Ah, see it seemed to me that you were saying that the church considered Mary to be sinful, when we know that the church does not. I misunderstood you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I didn’t myself clear that’s my bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well over 50% of fertilized eggs pass through and never attach to the uterine wall. If these are humans, who’s responsible for their death? God?
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
17
justasec, that is a very dogmatic statement. One might imagine that you believe you have the truth, yet it is not the same as mine or most people. Your myths are better eh? Moral relativism has been made by a succession of male reprobates who create myths that allow them to have their way with anything be it animal, vegetable, or mineral. No one is more dogmatic then a liberal secularist. I will stick with the bronze age idea of love as in “do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” I don’t think you can show me anything better then that.
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
Jake: 1. You cannot eliminate abortion in any sense of the word. Current statistics show that up to 1/3 of all child bearing age women will have an abortion, and that 20 some percent of them are catholic, same percentage as in the general population. There may be a slim chance of making it illegal, but there is no possibility of making it go away — unless we can work on the social structure of the world to make it less likely for people to choose.
2. How society treats all of the people has improved in nearly every generation (I’d say the jury is still out on the current generation with the job creators and trickle down economics impinging on the working class) It is the secular liberals most pushing for these improvements.
Like or Dislike:
9 
18
I thought your statistic was high so I did some research on the internet. You were right. I saw a couple of studies that showed it to be even higher, 4 out of 10 women having abortions. I never would have guessed it to be that high.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
About the % of child bearing females that have abortions.
How many of those females are teenagers and were impregnated by older men???
If statuatory rape and other laws were tough and strongly enforced, then these men would be caught and punished. This would also be a deterrent for older men to leave the juvenile girls alone.
Not to change the subject, but in ND, if some wildlife is poached, the Game and Fish Dept. will spare no expense to find the responsible party.
Other crimes (arson, etc.) are barely investigated. The state puts to much emphasis on crimes against wildlife, when the crimes against humans should have higher priority for investigation, prosecution and punishment.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
A little further from the topic….in the Duluth area a man was charged with having sex with a deer carcass. How demented is that?
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
“in the Duluth area a man was charged with having sex with a deer carcass”
Shameful. He should have married it beforehand.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Well as long as he pays his fawn support I will try my best not to judge him.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
We can’t stop all murders, so should we just repeal the law against murder and stop trying? We will end abortion someday. Or our society will end as it sinks into the swamp of the culture of death.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Catholic faithfuls can vote for whoever they choose to vote for.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
When JFK was President, the Democratic Party was largely supported by Catholic voters. It had a moral compass then.
Over the years, the Democratic Party has abandoned its moral compass. The Democratic Party has placed homosexuality and abortion on its altar.
Catholics in good conscience will not forgo their faith and vote for a Democrat. Those that do can be likened to Judas.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
17
People’s freedoms must come first. Catholics must think of other religions as well, not just themselves. Their bishops are stuck in the past. It’s time to think to the future and freedoms of choice. Their stuck in past ways, views is why there are so many religions now. For good of the country, it is best to keep religious views out of politics.
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
“When JFK was President, the Democratic Party was largely supported by Catholic voters. It had a moral compass then.”
Too bad JFK didn’t.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
“The Church” trying to tell you who you should and should not vote for is what I would refer to as manipulation, intimidation, and ill intention. They have used the same basic issues to try and persuade their congregations to vote one way or another for far too long. Truth is that there are far more issues they are actually concerned about when it comes to which side to take, they use this as leverage. The Church was supposed to be a place of worship, a place of acceptance, and something to help build the people’s faith, not a political tool which absorbs corruption and calls it “necessity”… Wether it is abortion, sexual preference, or any of the other “hot issues,” the Church should be supporting the people’s right to make their own decisions, right or wrong, this is how we are supposed to learn from our mistakes. Their attempt to decide what is right and wrong for everybody else is from their lust for power and control, this is unfortunate but seems to be fairly consistent. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about “making the right decisions,” but I am also quite an advocate of allowing others to make the choices they face themselves, as long as the intention is in the right place sometimes a wrong decision may be considered the right decision…
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
Didn’t Jesus call out people that sinned?
The Samaritian woman at the well with several husbands, is an example. She changed her life because of his actions.
He even threw the money changers out of the temple.
To encourage people to sin is bringing them to self ruin.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Sure they can and they will. Catholics are starting to think for themselves and are not locked into religious dogma.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Not sure “starting to” is the correct term. First-world Catholics have pretty much dumped most of the Church’s teachings on matters that concern them. Contraception is but one topic. Many look at the Pope as an old man who lives in luxury and is completely separated from the realities of life. Others believe they can have a personal relationship with their god without the Church as intermediary. And, of course, all the lousy publicity about priests hasn’t helped any.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
Doesn’t matter what he is thinking katie. Niether are scientifically possible along with many other false stories in the bible. Catholics preach about worshiping a false god when they do just that. Wow, that thought just blew my mind!
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Economy in the toile, foreign policy in shambles, unemployment through the roof, no new energy policy, but wait! lets all go vote based on pro-life/pro-choice positions.
Anyone want to take a guess why we are such a mess as a nation? Look no further
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Well at least they aren’t voting soley on gun control!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Republicans hate the Poor, Sick, Old, Female, Non-white, Non-christian, Unemployed, and Gay people. Jesus likes ALL of those people. Don’t catholics like Jesus?
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Democrats hate babies, conservatives, the elderly, traditional, Christian, employed, tax paying, heterosexual, white, and military people. Jesus likes ALL those people. Don’t Democrats like Jesus?
Obama sure did keep his promise of a new culture of civility.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1